New Year’s Irresolutions

President Barack Obama’s absence from the great gathering in Paris of national leaders from other countries, to show their solidarity with France in its opposition to Islamic terrorists, was another sign of the Obama administration’s continuing irresolution in the face of terror.

Even the recent courageous message of Egypt’s president, Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi, calling on his fellow Muslims around the world to “revolutionize” the interpretation of Islam, to make it more compatible with peaceful relations with other peoples, put no steel in the spine of Barack Obama.

From his earliest days in the White House, our president has downplayed the terrorist threat from Islamic extremists. He declared victory as he pulled American troops out of Iraq, setting the stage for a huge defeat when ISIS moved in to create their own new government, on both Iraqi and Syrian soil — while committing atrocities against men, women and children not seen since the days of the Nazis.

Not on his Agenda, so it doesn’t matter.

Undaunted, President Obama has since reaffirmed his determination to similarly pull American troops out of Afghanistan, with a similar declaration that they are no longer needed. He proceeds as if he can declare a war over when it suits the political convenience of his administration.

But a war is not over until the enemy stops fighting. The terrorist enemies of Iraq and Afghanistan are enemies of the United States as well. ISIS has left no doubt of that by beheading Americans and spreading the videotapes of these beheadings for the enjoyment of like-minded people in the Middle East and beyond.

Not even the movement of the world’s biggest sponsor of terrorism — Iran — toward building a nuclear bomb has caused the Obama administration to change its vision of the world. For Obama, the question has never been how to stop Iran from going nuclear, but how to stop Israel from stopping Iran from going nuclear.

He has accomplished that by public declarations of support for Israel, while engaging in protracted negotiations with Iran that serve only to allow Iran to fortify and proliferate the sites of its nuclear facilities, to the point where Israel’s bombers may no longer be able to destroy those facilities.

At one time, information was leaked that Israel had a secret arrangement with Azerbaijan for Israeli bombers to land there and refuel on their way back from bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities.

It is doubtful if anyone in the Obama administration would have dared to leak Israel’s military secrets without knowing that it was all right with the president. Since it is unlikely that very many people in the White House had this information, the leaker’s identity could hardly have remained secret from the president.

Barack Obama cannot be unaware of the consequences of these and other foreign policy decisions that undermine the security of America and America’s allies. He is not stupid, nor is there any reason to believe that he is cowardly.

Instead, there is a remarkable consistency between Obama’s domestic policies and his foreign policies on both economic and military matters. It was a sign of this consistency that he was proposing to have the taxpayers pay for free community college education while everyone else was focused on the terror attacks in Paris.

Barack Obama’s vision of the world, both at home and abroad, is one in which some people and nations are undeservedly far better off than others in many ways.

In the Obama view of the world, those who are undeservedly thriving (“You didn’t build that!”) are to be forced to pay for benefits to those who are not thriving, whether the latter are people on welfare, community college students or immigrants from poorer nations, who are to be let into the United States to take a share of Americans’ prosperity.

On the international stage, it is the same principle, where the problem is seen as Western nations being undeservedly better off than other nations, both economically and in terms of greater military power. Here too, Obama is for redistribution, even at the expense of his own country — if someone with such a “citizen of the world” viewpoint really thinks of America as his country, rather than a staging area for his world-changing, ideologically-driven crusades. (Thomas Sowell)

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

“i have a previous engagement with The San Antonio Spurs…”

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

The Commander-in-Chief?

The Iraq pull out wasn’t his decision! Declaring Victory (“Mission Accomplished”) and going home wasn’t his decision…

If somehow Obama bin Laden’s death backfired, after exploiting it for all this time, Obama would suddenly claim he had nothing to do with it.

Anything he does that goes bad is someone else’s fault. And the liberal media will back him on it by ignoring his most recent bombshell.

CBS: A day after American warplanes began launching airstrikes at Islamist militants in Iraq, President Obama said Saturday that those strikes “successfully destroyed arms and equipment” used by fighters with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). He also suggested the U.S. military campaign could persist for several months, and that the broader humanitarian mission could take even longer.

and The Ministry of Truth drones on…

Thus he is the greatest President ever, because he can do no wrong.

Nope, no bias here. 🙂

That’s the quality of leadership we’re dealing with. Obama is quick to take credit for everything that benefits him and quicker to run away from responsibility for anything.

Even if it wasn’t my idea, if it’s good, it’s mine. If it goes bad, it your idea, even if it WAS mine. No expiration date.

NOW THAT’S LEADERSHIP!! 🙂

For years Obama took credit for ending the Iraq War. He campaigned on a platform of pulling all the troops out in 16 months. His dovish position on Iraq is a big part of the reason why he became the Democratic nominee.

“We’ve had enough of a misguided war in Iraq that never should have been fought — a war that needs to end,” Obama said in 2007.

“You know I say what I mean and I mean what I say,” Obama said in Hollywood, Florida on Nov. 4, 2012.  “I said I’d end the war in Iraq. I ended it.”

But that wasn’t my decision, he says 18 months later.  From 2010:

Now Obama wants to disavow the only reason why he’s in the White House because his position has backfired.

Today, on the South Lawn of the White House, after Obama explained why he had ordered the U.S. military to renew airstrikes in Iraq, a reporter asked Obama about his decision to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq.

“Mr. President, do you have any second thoughts about pulling all ground troops out of Iraq?” the reporter asked. “And does it give you pause as the U.S.-is it doing the same thing in Afghanistan?”

“What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps on coming up, as if this was my decision,” Obama said, indicating that he does not believe it was his decision as commander in chief of U.S. troops in a congressional authorized action in Iraq  to decide whether the troops should stay or leave.

“Under the previous administration, we had turned over the country to a sovereign, democratically elected Iraqi government,” Obama said. “In order for us to maintain troops in Iraq, we needed the invitation of the Iraqi government and we needed assurances that our personnel would be immune from prosecution if, for example, they were protecting themselves and ended up getting in a firefight with Iraqis, that they wouldn’t be hauled before an Iraqi judicial system.

“And the Iraqi government, based on its political considerations, in part because Iraqis were tired of a U.S. occupation, declined to provide us those assurances,” Obama said. “And on that basis, we left. We had offered to leave additional troops. So when you hear people say, do you regret, Mr. President, not leaving more troops, that presupposes that I would have overridden this sovereign government that we had turned the keys back over to and said, you know what, you’re democratic, you’re sovereign, except if I decide that it’s good for you to keep 10,000 or 15,000 or 25,000 Marines in your country, you don’t have a choice, which would have kind of run contrary to the entire argument we were making about turning over the country back to Iraqis, an argument not just made by me, but made by the previous administration.”

So let’s just be clear: (HERE COMES THE LIE!!!! HE ALWAYS LIES AFTER THAT OPENING) The reason that we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because the Iraqis were–a majority of Iraqis did not want U.S. troops there, and politically they could not pass the kind of laws that would be required to protect our troops in Iraq,” said Obama.(CNS)

Obama’s dishonesty and hypocrisy here are mindboggling.

First of all, whatever you think of the withdrawal, Obama deliberately chose not to seriously work toward an agreement keeping troops there.

Second of all, Obama is blaming Iraq as the reason for the withdrawal and yet he completely ignored repeated pleas for air strikes by Iraq in recent months.

Air strikes that would have stopped ISIS in its tracks.

So if you believe Obama, he was only doing what Iraq wanted when he withdrew, yet ignored what Iraq wanted when ISIS was on the march.

Third of all, Obama completely ignores his history of arguing loudly for the withdrawal and claiming credit for the withdrawal.

When withdrawal was popular, it was his decision. When it became unpopular, then it’s Iraq’s decision.

Truly this man is JFK, Reagan and George Washington wrapped in one bundle.(Daniel Greenfield)

July 21, 2008: (NRO)

On the eve of Senator Barack Obama’s visit to Iraq, its prime minister tried to step back Sunday from comments in an interview in which he appeared to support Mr. Obama’s plan for troop withdrawal.

The interview with the prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, was published Saturday in the online version of Der Spiegel, a German magazine. It was widely picked up by American newspapers because it appeared to give an unexpected boost to Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, who has called for an expedited withdrawal….

In Iraq, controversy continued to reverberate between the United States and Iraqi governments over a weekend news report that Mr. Maliki had expressed support for Mr. Obama’s proposal to withdraw American combat troops within 16 months of January. The reported comments came after Mr. Bush agreed on Friday to a “general time horizon” for pulling out troops from Iraq without a specific timeline.

President Obama wants to be responsible for what makes him look good in a short term moment and conveniently shoves off the bad and real decision making on everything and everyone else.

Did you know it was Bush’s Fault that he ended the war??

President Bush’s fingerprints are on the decision, and on any matter in which there is some contributory Bush role, Obama blames Bush, no matter how minimal Bush’s contribution was, as if Obama were a mere spectator incapable of anything other than self-absorbed indignation. (townhall)

That’s your Commander-In-Chief. He’ll Lead, as long as he get credit for the good and someone else gets the blame for the bad!

Fascinating…

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

 

Politics is Hell

Our Commander-in-Chief is belatedly learning a lesson that every infantryman knows his first year. You don’t “end” wars; you win them or you lose them.

Thanks to our valiant armed forces and the Petraeus/Bush surge, we defeated the militants in Iraq and were ready for a gradual, organized hand-off to the newly elected civilian government.

But President Obama, through political calculation or diplomatic ineptness, failed to secure a simple Status of Forces Agreement with Prime Minister Maliki. This led to an abrupt removal of American troops and American influence on the fledgling state. As expected, the Iraq security vacuum was filled soon enough.

Radicals on every side began to assert themselves and ultimately tore apart coalitions the allies painfully built up over years. Obama’s haphazard policy choices have left us with an infighting, Iran-backed political class in Baghdad, an embattled Kurdish minority in the north, and the Islamic State rolling over both.

Last night, Obama decided to drop provisions to starving Yazidis atop Mount Sinjar and appears to be bombing IS positions here and there. Anything to get the image of children dying of thirst off television and social media.

The Obama Doctrine is to ignore problems until they metastasize into vast international crises, then react with an ineffective spasm of concern. In this, the President has been consistent, be it Libya, Egypt, Boko Haram or Ukraine. The truly serious situations get a Twitter hashtag.

And after Israel is a smoking hole in the ground and Hamas is dancing in celebration on their grave, THEN he might get it. But don’t hold your breath.

And besides, this is “media” driven bombing, not actual military strategy.

It is good that Obama finally has been spurred to action, but most expect his Iraq efforts to be far too little, far too late. A year ago, he backed into a proposal to bomb Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, indirectly assisting the nascent IS army. Yesterday, he backed into a proposal to bomb IS, indirectly assisting Assad and Iran. Note that the Islamic State is the same group Obama mocked months ago as being nothing but a J.V. version of Al Qaeda and unworthy of his attention. A reactionary foreign policy is a rudderless one.

To date, the only American casualty in this new Iraq War is Obama’s naive view of foreign affairs. After eight years of dishonest rhetoric about Bush’s greedy war for oil and empire, Obama now must explain why his air strikes are of a superior morality. And if Obama does achieve military success in Iraq, will progressive Democrats ever forgive him? (John Gabriel)

“We don’t understand real evil, organized evil, very well. This is evil incarnate. People like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi,” the ISIS leader, “have been in a fight for a decade. They are messianic in their vision, and they are not going to stop.” Former Ambassador Crocker

Messianic? where have I heard that before (BO)??? 🙂

Hope no civilians get hurt in War… 🙂

Politics is Hell.

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

 

The Delusion of the The King

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Monday the Obama administration’s foreign policies in a number of areas have enhanced the world’s “tranquility” – a word that raised eyebrows as reporters pointed to situations in Gaza, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Ukraine and the South China Sea.

More than one reporter during Monday’s press briefing referred to a front-page Wall Street Journal article highlighting some of those crises, and citing security strategists as saying “the breadth of global instability now unfolding hasn’t been seen since the late 1970s.”

“How does the White House react to the notion that the president is a bystander to all these crises?” asked Fox News’ Ed Henry, citing the widening gaps between the sides in the Iranian nuclear talks, the conflict in and around Gaza, and the Syrian civil war.

“I think that there have been a number of situations in which you’ve seen this administration intervene in a meaningful way, that has substantially furthered American interests and substantially improved the, uh, you know, the – the tranquility of the global community,” Earnest replied.

If I didn’t think they actually are that arrogant and out to lunch with reality I would laugh. But all I can do is cry.

ABC News’ Jon Karl quoted Attorney General Eric Holder’s assessment in an interview aired Sunday that the terrorist potential arising from Westerners returning home after fighting in Syria was “more frightening than anything I think I’ve seen as attorney general.”

Karl then pointed to “what’s looking like an all-out war” between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, Sunni jihadist successes in “taking over vast territory in Iraq and in Syria,” Russian aggression in Ukraine, and concerns about Chinese handling of territorial disputes in the South China Sea.

“It doesn’t seem like a time to be touting tranquility on the international scene,” he told Earnest. “Do you think the president’s foreign policy bears any responsibility for any of this, or is there anything he can do about any of this?”

Earnest said President Obama’s thinking about foreign policy was guided by one core principle – “the national security interests of the United States of America.”

Syria chamical weapons deal touted

He raised as examples of actions that advanced American interests the negotiated removal of the Assad regime’s “declared” chemical weapons (CW) stockpile, and mediation in recent days between “two competing presidential candidates in Afghanistan, who were prepared to sort of take that process off the rails.”

Secretary of State John Kerry’s efforts in brokering of an agreement calling for a full audit of votes in an Afghan election marred by allegations of rigging have drawn praise, although it will be weeks yet before the deal’s success or otherwise will be seen.

The Syria chemical deal has brought fewer plaudits from outside the administration, however. The Assad regime slow-walked the process, missing multiple deadlines set by the international community in a clearly-defined program of action.

Questions also remain about the completeness of its declaration – there are suspicions it may have kept some CW back – and the regime is also accused of using chlorine gas in the fighting this year.

Moreover, one key part of the CW agreement that has not been achieved is the destruction of 12 Syrian CW production facilities, a process that was meant to have begun last December and been completed by March 15. Almost four months after that deadline the 12 facilities, five of them located underground, remain standing.

“Syria continues to drag its feet in complying with its obligation to destroy chemical weapons production facilities,” U.S. ambassador to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, Robert Mikulak, told a meeting of the body’s executive council last week.

“The international community has questions that must be adequately answered by Syria regarding the declaration of its entire chemical weapons program,” he said.

Mikulak added that the U.S. “remains deeply concerned by the reports of systematic use of chlorine gas and other chemicals in opposition areas by Syrian government forces.”

Apart from questions about the agreement’s implementation, some critics also believe the deal overall left President Bashar Assad’s regime stronger, because it transformed him in the space of several days from a pariah who had been facing promised U.S. airstrikes for using chemical agents to kill more than 1,400 people, to a partner whose cooperation was needed to achieve the touted CW handover. (CNS)

Ministry of Truth: it is responsible for any necessary falsification of historical events. In another sense, and in keeping with the concept of doublethink, the ministry is aptly named, in that it creates/manufactures “truth” in the Newspeak sense of the word. The book describes a willful fooling of posterity using doctored historical archives to show a government-approved version of events.

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history to change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect. For example, if Big Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of Truth go back and rewrite the prediction so that any prediction Big Brother previously made is accurate. This is the “how” of the Ministry of Truth’s existence. Within the novel, Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind (if, for instance, they perform one of their constant changes regarding enemies during war) or make a mistake (firing an official or making a grossly misjudged supply prediction), for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and strong.

Minitrue plays a role as the news media by changing history, and changing the words in articles about events current and past, so that Big Brother and his government are always seen in a good light and can never do any wrong. The content is more propaganda than actual news.

Then there’s just the outright Delusion of The King, a hubris that say they are always right and nothing they do is ever wrong. How can they be wrong, they have only the purest, most saintly of intentions… They are the superior beings. Super Geniuses as it happens!

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

 

 

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

The Sowell of the Syria Question

Serious about Syria?

Serious about Syria?

By: Thomas Sowell
9/3/2013 01:23 PM

Why are we even talking about taking military action in Syria? What is that military action supposed to accomplish? And what is the probability that it will in fact accomplish whatever that unknown goal might be?

It can’t really be WMDs from British Intelligence reports because we all know that just leads to Bush league evil, right? 🙂

What is painfully clear from President Obama’s actions, inactions and delays is that he is more or less playing it by ear, as to what specifically he is going to do, and when. He is telling us more about what he is not going to do — that he will not put “boots on the ground,” for example — than about what he will do.

But, of course, if he has his Nintendo War and it is totally ineffective and then the Terrorist come across our “secure” border (or are already here) and strike in the U.S., then what Mr. Campaigner Speech?

All this is happening a year after issuing an ultimatum to the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria against the use of chemical or biological weapons. When the President of the United States issues an ultimatum to another sovereign nation, he should know in advance what he is going to do if that ultimatum is rejected.

You blame “the world” for setting the red-line that you set and try to shame them into doing your bidding because that’s how a Community Organizer does it. And it’s always worked before right? 🙂

But that is not the way Barack Obama operates. Like so many people who are masters of lofty words, he does not pay nearly as much attention to mundane realities. Campaigning is his strong suit. Governing is not.

With the mainstream media ready to ooh and aah over his rhetoric, and pass over in silence his policy disasters as President, Obama is home free as far as domestic politics is concerned. But, on the world stage, neither America’s enemies nor America’s allies are hypnotized by his words or his image.

Putin, as old style KGB, is laughing his ass of at the the little neophyte. He knows the bark is worse than the bite. And Assad has no fear of him.

Nations that have to decide whether to ally themselves with us or with our enemies understand that they are making life and death decisions. It is not about rhetoric, image or symbolism. It is about whether nations can count on the realism, wisdom and dependability of the American government.

And one thing Obama has proven is that he’ll pivot on a dime if it’s politically advantageous or throw anyone under a bus to save his own political hide.

He drew the line, and it’s YOUR fault. So YOU have to help him fix it! 😦

Make no mistake about it, Barack Obama is a very clever man. But cleverness is not wisdom, or even common sense.

No it’s not.

When he was in the Senate, Obama — along with Senators Joe Biden, Chuck Hagel and Hillary Clinton — was critical of the Bush administration for not being favorable to the Assad regime.

And were against “unilateral” actions. Even when Congress gave authorization to Bush for Iraq they almost immediately turned on him and have been bashing his “War for Oil” and “Bush Lied People Died” ever since.

But that’s just Politics. And that IS the problem. It’s just politics. It’s not a plan.

Hillary Clinton said that she and other lawmakers who visited Assad considered him a “reformer.” Back in 2007, when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, both Senator Biden and Senator Hagel chided her for not being more ready to negotiate with Assad.

Senator John Kerry in 2009 said, “Syria is an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region.”

Now he wants all the Chemical weapons (that he probably got from Saddam) turned over within a week, like some school principal talking down to a student.

I guess he was against attacking before he was for it. 🙂

Some people said that having Joe Biden as Vice President meant that President Obama had someone with many years of foreign policy experience. What they ignored was that Biden had decades of experience being wrong on foreign policy issues, time and time again.

Biden is just there to make getting rid of Obama, a worse case. 🙂

Biden opposed President Ronald Reagan’s military buildup that countered the Soviet Union’s buildup, and helped bring about both the end of the Cold War and the end of the Soviet Union. General David Petraeus’ “surge” strategy that greatly reduced the terrorist attacks in Iraq was opposed in 2007 by Senator Biden, who said, “We need to stop the surge and start to get our troops out.”

Senator Hillary Clinton not only opposed the surge from the outset, she was among those who refused to believe that it had succeeded, even after all the hard evidence had convinced most other people.

The grim reality is that key people in positions to shape our foreign policy during the Obama administration — the President, the Vice President, two Secretaries of State, and the current Secretary of Defense — all have a track record of grossly misconceiving the issues, our enemies and our national interest.

But are Political Tacticians. And the game of Politics is all they have in their sights.

This is the administration that is now asking for a blank check from Congress to take unspecified military action to achieve unspecified goals.

Just Like Bush in Iraq. But they say “it’s not Iraq”. Why? Because, they understand politically (not militarily) that they are hypocrites and they need someone (the media) to cover it up. Then rely on the blind Orwellian obedience of the mindless Left to carry them over the political threshold. Which is the only thing, really, in their sights.

“Military action” is a polite phrase for killing people. It would be nice to believe that this has some larger purpose than saving Barack Obama from political embarrassment, after having issued an ultimatum without having thought through what he would do if that ultimatum was ignored.

He’s the most arrogant man in the world. He’s the Supreme Community Organizer of the World. He can make you do anything he wants because he’s just THAT good at it.

Or So He thinks.

He has the authority to take military action if he wants to. The question is whether he can sucker the Republicans into giving him political cover by pre-approving his unknown actions and unknown goals. (Thomas Sowell)

Well, “Jar Jar” Boehner and the idiots are already lining up like lemmings to the slaughter.

They are only too happy to “appease” and to appear “reasonable” and not “racist” in opposing this President.

The consequences will not be pretty.

But at least we can all be secure in the knowledge that the one person who will not be at fault for those consequence is one Barack Hussein Obama!!

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

 

War of Words

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Vice President Joe Biden accused Rep. Paul Ryan of putting two wars on the “credit card,” and then suggested he voted against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“By the way, they talk about this great recession like it fell out of the sky–like, ‘Oh my goodness, where did it come from?’” Biden said. “It came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card, at the same time, put a prescription drug plan on the credit card, a trillion dollar tax cut for the very wealthy.”

“I was there, I voted against them,” Biden continued. “I said, no, we can’t afford that.”

Then Sen. Biden voted for the Afghanistan resolution on Sept. 14, 2001 which authorized “the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.”

And on Oct. 11, 2002, Biden voted for a resolution authorizing unilateral military action in Iraq, according to the Washington Post.

So did Sen. Hillary Clinton, by the way.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/senaterollcall_iraq101002.htm

Cut it anyway you want to Joe, YOU LIED. 🙂

But don’t expect anyone from The Ministry of Truth or the Left to care. They are too busy trying to cover up The Libyan debacle.

Video footage from the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya, taken the night of the Sept. 11 anniversary attacks, shows an organized group of armed men attacking the compound, according to two U.S. intelligence officials who have seen the footage and are involved in the ongoing investigation. The footage, which was recovered from the site last week by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, offers some of the most tangible evidence yet that a military-style assault took place, according to these officials.

But pressed on the administration reaction throughout this past MONTH and whether they were wrong“I think that’s an editorial judgment that you’re making.”Jay Carney White House Mouthpiece.

So they threw the State Department and the Intelligence community under the bus and back up over them repeatedly.

Now that’s accountability, responsibility and above all, transparency!! 🙂

US deficit tops $1 trillion for fourth year
But don’t worry, that’s Bush’s Fault and the solution is to tax the rich! 🙂
And Biden and Company are still lying about ObamaCare and Medicare:
Double-counting ObamaCare’s $716 billion Medicare cut to make it seem to be Medicare savings.
Biden claimed “no religious institution, Catholic or otherwise … has to either refer contraception” or “pay for contraception” or “be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact.”As the Catholic bishops noted, “This is not a fact. The (HHS mandate) contains a narrow, four-part exemption for certain ‘religious employers,'” but it does not include Catholic hospitals like the ones Biden mentioned, or other religious charities that serve all.Catholic and non-Catholic institutions “will still be forced to provide their employees with health coverage” that includes “sterilization, contraception, and abortifacients,” which they will have to pay for.It’s nearly a century since that young kid pleaded “Say it ain’t so, Joe” to Shoeless Joe Jackson during the Black Sox scandal. Our clownish vice president, Joe Biden, can’t ever seem to say anything that’s so.(IBD)Back to Libya…

Mark Steyn: ‘The entire reason that this has become the political topic it is is because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.” — Stephanie Cutter, White House Deputy Campaign MouthpieceThus, Stephanie Cutter (She also of the It’s a Romney $5 Trillion tax cut-no it’s not-yes it is), President Obama’s deputy campaign manager, speaking on CNN about an armed attack on the 9/11 anniversary that left a U.S. consulate a smoking ruin and killed four diplomatic staff, including the first American ambassador to be murdered in a third of a century. To discuss this event is apparently to “politicize” it and to distract from the real issues the American people are concerned about. For example, Obama spokesperson Jen Psaki, speaking on board Air Force One on Thursday: “There’s only one candidate in this race who is going to continue to fight for Big Bird and Elmo, and he is riding on this plane.”She’s right! The United States is the first nation in history whose democracy has evolved to the point where its leader is provided with a wide-body transatlantic jet in order to campaign on the vital issue of public funding for sock puppets. Sure, Caligula put his horse in the senate, but it was a real horse. At Ohio State University, the rapper will.i.am introduced the president by playing the Sesame Street theme tune, which oddly enough seems more apt presidential-walk-on music for the Obama era than “Hail to the Chief.” Obviously, Miss Cutter is right: A healthy mature democracy should spend its quadrennial election on critical issues like the Republican party’s war on puppets rather than attempting to “politicize” the debate by dragging in stuff like foreign policy, national security, the economy, and other obscure peripheral subjects. But, alas, it was her boss who chose to “politicize” a security fiasco and national humiliation in Benghazi. At 8:30 p.m., when Ambassador Stevens strolled outside the gate and bid his Turkish guest good night, the streets were calm and quiet. At 9:40 p.m., an armed assault on the compound began, well planned and executed by men not only armed with mortars but capable of firing them to lethal purpose — a rare combination among the excitable mobs of the Middle East. There was no demonstration against an Islamophobic movie that just got a little out of hand. Indeed, there was no movie protest at all. Instead, a U.S. consulate was destroyed and four of its personnel were murdered in one of the most sophisticated military attacks ever launched at a diplomatic facility.This was confirmed by testimony to Congress a few days ago, although you could have read as much in my column of four weeks ago. Nevertheless, for most of those four weeks, the president of the United States, the secretary of state, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and others have persistently attributed the Benghazi debacle to an obscure YouTube video — even though they knew that the two events had nothing to do with each other by no later than the crack of dawn Eastern time on September 12, by which point the consulate’s survivors had landed safely in Tripoli.

To “politicize” means “to give a political character to.” It is a reductive term, capturing the peculiarly shrunken horizons of politics: “Gee, they nuked Israel. D’you think that will hurt us in Florida?” So media outlets fret that Benghazi could be “bad” for Obama — by which they mean he might be hitting the six-figure lecture circuit four years ahead of schedule. But for Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods, it’s real bad. They’re dead, over, gonesville. Given that Obama and Secretary Clinton refer to Stevens pneumatically as “Chris,” as if they’ve known him since third grade, why would they dishonor the sacrifice of their close personal friend by peddling an utterly false narrative as to why he died? You want “politicization”? Secretary Clinton linked the YouTube video to the murder of her colleagues even as the four caskets lay alongside her at Andrews Air Force Base — even though she had known for days that it had nothing to do with it. It’s weird enough that politicians now give campaign speeches to returning coffins. But to conscript your “friend”’s corpse as a straight man for some third-rate electoral opportunism is surely as shriveled and worthless as “politicization” gets.

In the vice-presidential debate, asked why the White House spent weeks falsely blaming it on the video, Joe Biden took time off between big toothy smirks to reply: “Because that was exactly what we were told by the intelligence community.” That too is false. He also denied that the government of which he is nominally second-in-command had ever received a request for additional security. At the risk of “politicizing” things, this statement would appear also to be untrue.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Liberals…. 🙂

NOVEMBER IS COMING!

A 2011 Perspective

1984-movie-big-brother obama.jpg
Indeed, the GOP hopefuls have been thoroughly queried on a laundry list of issues ranging from immigration problems to the faltering economy, Iran’s nuclear program to trade deficits with China, the intricacies of climate change to strategies to combat terrorism, exploding government regulations to skyrocketing public debt, plus some uncomfortable questions about their pasts and their personal lives.Yet, during all that time, the man they hope to defeat next November has rarely been asked by news reporters about many of these issues. Since August, President Obama has held only one formal White House news conference. That came on Oct. 6, nearly three months ago. It lasted 74 minutes, shorter than any single Republican debate, and the president was asked 17 questions, most of them softballs on the economy and his latest legislative proposals to create jobs.

No questions on immigration, no questions on Iran or Iraq or Afghanistan or Israel or North Korea — global trouble spots the GOP candidates have been queried about repeatedly. Moreover, he was not asked about what spending cuts he would make to reduce the deficit, nothing about Medicare and Social Security reform or his health care law, all familiar questions for the Republicans seeking his job.

Obama’s ability to avoid tough questions, skate above the fray and look presidential while his potential successors appear to be futilely flailing is not by accident. It is by White House design, abetted by a press corps that seems content with being shut out by the president and being spoon-fed the message of the day, rather than clamoring for more chances to ask him questions during this critical time.

Just over the last couple of weeks, several major world events cried out for presidential comment, but little was forthcoming other than a few statements, some of which were attributed not to the president but to administration officials, named and unnamed. Among these events were:

– The Russian elections. It was left to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to publicly question whether they were fraudulent. And while she was clearly speaking for the president, it was Clinton, not Obama, who drew fire from Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who accused her of encouraging protesters. So as it appears in the news media, Russia is Clinton’s problem, not Obama’s.

– Iran’s recent threat to block oil shipments in the Strait of Hormuz if sanctions are imposed on its oil exports. No word, so far, from the vacationing president. However, an unnamed administration official did accuse Iran of “saber-rattling.”

– The rash of bombings in Iraq, in the wake of the U.S. troop withdrawal there, has not produced a statement from Obama, nor have reporters been able to ask him if he now feels the full draw-down might have been a bit premature. No chance, either, to question the president on recent unrest in Syria.

– The death of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il and what it might mean for U.S. relations with that troubled country has not drawn presidential comment. Clinton, speaking for the administration, said, “We reiterate our hope for improved relations with the people of North Korea.” And White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the U.S. has “no new concerns” about North Korea’s nuclear arsenal.

In sum, the news we get from the White House is the news that administration press handlers want to give us, much of which provides the president with comfortable distance from foreign policy hot spots. From Hawaii this week, we get nice reports about presidential golf and snorkeling, the release of green sea turtles by the First Family, a visit with U.S. Marines and a baby putting her fingers in the president’s mouth.

No wonder the GOP candidates look so bad. It’s time for reporters to start smoking the president out and call for him, not his surrogates, to answer questions on a regular basis. (RCP)

Not going to happen. The Ministry of Truth (The “Mainstream Media”) is very firmly against it.

The Ministry of Truth in reality serves an opposing purpose to that which its name would imply, being responsible for the falsification of historical events; and yet is aptly named in a deeper sense, in that it creates/manufactures “truth” in the newspeak sense of the word.

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history and change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect. For example, if Big Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of Truth go back and rewrite the prediction so that any prediction Big Brother previously made is accurate. This is the “how” of the Ministry of Truth’s existence. Within the novel (1984) Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind (if, for instance, they perform one of their constant changes regarding enemies during war) or make a mistake (firing an official or making a grossly misjudged supply prediction), for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and strong.

And as 2012 proceeds it will only get worse. Much, Much worse.

After all, as AG Holder said, Lting is “complicated” and their will be no one more “complicated” than Obama and His Ministry of Truth.

Speaking from her paradisical $4 million Hawaii vacation, Mrs. Obama wants to know: Do any of President Obama’s supporters have $3 to spare for his reelection?

Michelle’s request was part of an email sent to the Obama 2012 list today.

Over the next 11 months we’ve got an organization to grow, voters to register, and people to get fired up.

I hope you’ll close out this year by donating $3 or more now to help make sure we’re ready for the next one . . .

Thank you so much, and happy new year,

Michelle

The obscene juxtaposition of the first lady on a $4 million vacation while asking what would have to be middle to low income earners for three bucks – who else would they be targeting with such an appeal? – is yet another example of lack of perspective the Obamas seem to be gaining while in power.

Mrs. Obama takes extravagant vacations to Spain and southern Africa. The president golfs obsessively and is currently dining at Honolulu’s ritziest restaurants. All while asking their fellow Americans to “sacrifice” during this time of not plenty.

And they blow $4 million – mostly taxpayers’ money – on a vacation, while wondering if the small people can come up with $3.

What about renting a beach house next year at the Jersey shore? I mean, if we’re all going to sacrifice.(whitehousedossier.com)

But it’s good to be the King and Queen. And if the peasants want to give tithe to their Lord & Master so much the better.

And make sure the “Royal Messengers” (aka The Media) stay on point.

The Liberal view of the political spectrum:
in_beltway_spectrumOur view of the political spectrumout_beltway_spectrum

OBAMA 2012

BIG Brother is Watching you!

He’ll know if you’ve been naughty or nice. And Make sure Big Sis and her VIPR teams know as well.

Sleep tight. Don’t let the Fed Bugs Bite! 🙂